Glad to see this system in preview status even though my % clinched in CA drop from 62 to 31. I don't mind adding over 2000 miles to my totals overnight.

Here are a couple things I noticed at first glance. By no means a comprehensive review even of just the routes I've traveled.

CA16: Broken concurrncy with I-5BLWoo between waypoints 59 and 63 (looks like I-5BLWoo could be missing a waypoint)CA16: Seems to be a broken concurrency with I-5 near the Sacramento Airport. Looks like the problem is between waypoints 67 and 80CA45: Waypoint 33 should probably be named CA20_E, not CA20_S (waypoint 43 is labeled CA20_W)CA60: Broken concurrency with I-15 between waypoints #60 and #67 (named 53 and 58)CA78: Broken concurrency between waypoints 39 and 44 (named CA79_N and CA79_S) CA79: Broken concurrency with CA78 between waypoints 31 and 44 (see above)

That's all I can think of for the moment. I'll keep my eyes open for others.

Your exit labeling for CA99 in Sacramento is inconsistent with other routes. It seems you used <Exit#>(Route#) where Route Number did not specify system (I, US ,CA) For example you used 525B(50) instead of US50(525B). Might want to check for consistency

DISCLAIMER: I was lazy to check if the standard was changed, though if that would be the case I'd have more errors than what the log shows me.

Thanks for getting this system ready. I noticed a couple minor things from my maps:

CA1: Consider adding a shaping point in Cambria so it doesn't overlap with CA1BusCA1 & CA68: concurrency not showing in MontereyCA16 & I-5BLWoo concurrency not showing in WoodlandCA49: CA4 & CA4Bus_E points are out of order, causing the sharp angle errorCA113 & I-80 concurrency not showing west of DavisCA156 & US101 concurrency not showing north of Salinas

On the broken concurrencies -- like what's going on now in Oregon, that happens when one of the concurrent routes was redone and the other hasn't been redone yet. Those will be fixed before the system goes active. There are a few spots where a broken concurrency between an active route and a usaca preview route seems to be triggering Datacheck errors for the former, and those will be the first to be fixed. The others will take awhile.

On exit numbers, as SSOWorld noted some exits are in [exit number]([route number]) format, while others are in [route number]([exit number]) format. We were moving to the former, but I'm getting uneasy about it, and am inclined to move everything in California to the latter format (preserving the old waypoint labels only for routes in active systems like I- and US routes). One reason for my concern is that it creates a jarring difference between the labels where one route intersects another (label uses the route number of the cross road, followed by the exit number if needed -- sometimes the exit number is there but isn't needed, which will be cleanup when I redo the route) and where routes overlap and one or both routes have exit numbers (which, per the newer standard, label uses the exit number followed by the route number).

I'll put fixes for mapcat's comments on CA 1 in Cambria and CA49 in Angel Camp in my next update.

On exit numbers, as SSOWorld noted some exits are in [exit number]([route number]) format, while others are in [route number]([exit number]) format. We were moving to the former, but I'm getting uneasy about it, and am inclined to move everything in California to the latter format (preserving the old waypoint labels only for routes in active systems like I- and US routes). One reason for my concern is that it creates a jarring difference between the labels where one route intersects another (label uses the route number of the cross road, followed by the exit number if needed -- sometimes the exit number is there but isn't needed, which will be cleanup when I redo the route) and where routes overlap and one or both routes have exit numbers (which, per the newer standard, label uses the exit number followed by the route number).

The CHM guidelines say "In multiplexes where the concurrency uses exit numbers from the other highway, put the highway number in parentheses. ... For non-exit-numbered routes concurrent with a numbered, exit-numbered route, use the concurrent highway designation with the exit numbers in parentheses." Don't all of California's freeways have exit numbers now (or are in the process of getting them)? If exit numbers can be assumed to be universal, I don't think there's a situation where [route number](exit number) is needed anymore.

On exit numbers, as SSOWorld noted some exits are in [exit number]([route number]) format, while others are in [route number]([exit number]) format. We were moving to the former, but I'm getting uneasy about it, and am inclined to move everything in California to the latter format (preserving the old waypoint labels only for routes in active systems like I- and US routes). One reason for my concern is that it creates a jarring difference between the labels where one route intersects another (label uses the route number of the cross road, followed by the exit number if needed -- sometimes the exit number is there but isn't needed, which will be cleanup when I redo the route) and where routes overlap and one or both routes have exit numbers (which, per the newer standard, label uses the exit number followed by the route number).

The CHM guidelines say "In multiplexes where the concurrency uses exit numbers from the other highway, put the highway number in parentheses. ... For non-exit-numbered routes concurrent with a numbered, exit-numbered route, use the concurrent highway designation with the exit numbers in parentheses." Don't all of California's freeways have exit numbers now (or are in the process of getting them)? If exit numbers can be assumed to be universal, I don't think there's a situation where [route number](exit number) is needed anymore.

Until recently, exit numbers were rare in California (a byproduct of postmiles resetting at county lines, so there was postmile duplication for the longer freeways, and exit numbers couldn't be assigned on that basis). Now they are more common, but there are still many freeways that don't have them.

Until recently, exit numbers were rare in California (a byproduct of postmiles resetting at county lines, so there was postmile duplication for the longer freeways, and exit numbers couldn't be assigned on that basis). Now they are more common, but there are still many freeways that don't have them.

I can't see the benefit of creating a I-123(456) waypoint for CA789 now, knowing that it will probably need to change to 456(123) when the non-concurrent exits on CA789 get exit numbers.

Until recently, exit numbers were rare in California (a byproduct of postmiles resetting at county lines, so there was postmile duplication for the longer freeways, and exit numbers couldn't be assigned on that basis). Now they are more common, but there are still many freeways that don't have them.

I can't see the benefit of creating a I-123(456) waypoint for CA789 now, knowing that it will probably need to change to 456(123) when the non-concurrent exits on CA789 get exit numbers.

That assumes that the non-concurrent part of CA 789 is a freeway, that might some day get its own exit numbers. Usually it's not a freeway, and probably never will be. For example, CA 166, for which I cleaned up and synched the route file a few days ago, which is mostly a mountain two-lane, and its only concurrency with a freeway (US 101 in Santa Maria) got US101(nnn) waypoints for the several exits on that segment (two of them were previously labeled US101_N and US101_S rather than with their newly-signed exit numbers).

I think that the rule book was a directive from CHM webmaster Tim, that never got followed consistently. While the rulebook practice has its virtues (shorter waypoint names, mainly), especially for existing waypoints ISTM that it should be up to the team member.

Hidden point request for California Street in San Francisco on CA 1. Never made it through the Presidio on CA 1 between Golden Gate Park and US 101. CA 2's overlap on US 101 should use 101's exit numbers, not cross-streets; even if cross-streets were used, US101_N and US101_S are reversed. CA 14 Trk being assigned to the I-5 Trk in Newhall Pass...? CA 23's overlap on US 101 should use 101's exit numbers.

CA1: I-280 concurrency brokenCA12: I-80 concurrency broken (Heh. Anagrams!)CA13: The only point I'd really nix from the non-freeway portion is ColAve. The rest are justifiable on Nearby Interchange grounds.CA14TrkNew: Wait, is this for real?CA16: I-80BL concurrency broken

CA41:ElCamReal -> CamReal, on Leave-out-the-definite-article grounds. Or perhaps, helped out by the shape of the interchange, fold it into the US101 point due to 1PPI.CA46_S -> CA46_W; CA46_N -> CA46_E

Don't know if other plexes, E.G. I-15/CA18, may be affected. These are just a few items that should show up on the HB when u=yakra. There are enough broken plexes, from what I've seen combined with what others have reported, to make it worth a look-thru, IMO. Perhaps a look around in the HDX...

As I suggested above, ignore broken concurrencies for now. They should gradually disappear as additional routes are finalized.

CA14TrkNew is an interesting story. It's a separate and non-parallel alignment of I-5, so truckers avoid the CA 14/I-210 clusterfork. Basically, it's signed as Truck Route I-5/CA 14, but since it isn't officially a separate Interstate route, I opted to label it as a CA 14 branch. Caltrans' route logs call it route 5S, but it isn't signed as such. Also, CA 14U, doesn't connect to the I-5 mainline except through the truck route (yes, there are 14U markers in the field, an interesting story in itself).I'm open to suggestions about what to do with CA14Trk, including rename or deletion.

Directional suffixes like CA 46_S and _E confuse me, so it helps me for people to point out mismatches. There are more.

I think the story with CA 47 is that Caltrans has plans to extend it northward, and is legislatively authorized to do so (most of the legislative route is considered "unconstructed" due to the road in that corridor not meeting state highway standards), but I'll have to confirm that later.

I believe I had drafted what you have as CA 14 Truck as I-5 Truck, and a separate CA 14 Truck connecting CA 14 to I-5 Truck back when I first drafted usaca. Whether the proper CA 14 Truck is included or not is up to you (I'd include it), but I do think I-5 Truck should stay (preferably as I-5 Truck) because of the exit to CA 14U.

Which, on a related note, I need to ask: CA 259 was removed because it's completely unsigned as such, correct? It's an odd reason, considering it has its own independent exit between its termini with I-215 and CA 210, and as a connector route, is on par with Delta Hwy (Lane CR 1740, according to OSM), which is included in the Oregon set. I think it's a viable candidate for inclusion, despite lack of signage, for that reason. That, and because I've clinched it of course. (I don't think entering it into the set as the northernmost segment of the San Bernardino Freeway is useful, as then you'd have to include the entire SBd Freeway, though that would finally cover out the segment between US 101 and I-5...)